Strikes and Balls

Okay, so this isn't really about America's Greatest Pastime.  I'm referring to the strike on the Syrian airbase from which the heinous sarin gas attack was launched by Syrian President Assad, and the fact that it showed that America once again has ... you know.

The strike was a welcome reversal from President Obama's famed "red line," which Syria wasted little time in crossing.  The U.S. response was, by all appearances, to erase the red line.  Hopefully, this action marks the end of U.S. fecklessness abroad, and puts despots like Assad on notice that we will not stand idly by while they poison their own citizens.

Most on the right, and many on the left, supported the action.  Sure, Tim Kaine denounced it, calling it "unlawful."  Chalk it up to sour grapes from a guy whose ticket got Trumped (and it puts the lie to the notion that Kaine is a moderate).  Retired GOP Rep. Ron Paul claimed there is "zero chance" that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack.  Let's not forget that Rep. Paul proved himself on more than one occasion to be just a tad too nutty to be taken seriously.

But Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom had already begun calling for President Trump's impeachment, endorsed the attack.

Schumer:  "Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do."

And Pelosi:  "Tonight's strike in Syria appears to be a proportional response to the the regime's use of chemical weapons."

Even Hillary Clinton spoke out in support of the attack, claiming that she'd have done the same thing as POTUS.  (If you believe that, I've got some beachfront property in my Kansas back yard to sell you.)

Did the strike go far enough to dissuade Assad from further atrocities?  No, but it's a start, and it's definitely more decisive than mere rhetoric.

The strike was a good move for several reasons.  First, as noted above, it represents a reversal of American fecklessness on the world stage, and serves as a warning to those abroad who had come to take U.S. resolve less than seriously.

Second, it should put to rest the notion that Trump is in Vladimir Putin's hip pocket.  Here's the response from the Russian deputy U.N. envoy:  "We strongly condemn the illegitimate actions by the U.S.”  And Russia's prime minister charged that the strike put the U.S. "one step away from clashing with Russia's military," according to Reuters.  (This, in spite of the fact that the U.S. reportedly informed Russian forces in advance of the attack.)

Note that this is the same Russian military that had become accustomed to buzzing our fighters in the region, again with no response from the formerly meek U.S.  Those actions should have put Russia one step closer to clashing with the U.S. military.  But it didn't, under the previous administration, and Russia knew that.  So I have no problem with adding Putin to the list of despots put on notice.  Maybe he'll think twice about further forays into Ukraine, now that he knows the U.S. response won't be to tell him to "cut it out."

Of course, there are those conspiracy theorists who suggest that this is all part of some grand scheme hatched by Putin and "his new pal in the White House."  MSNBC talking head Lawrence O'Donnell postulated that Putin planned the attack so that Trump could garner some positive press.

But when he floated that notion to fellow MSNBCer Rachel Maddow - who had previously never met a right-wing conspiracy theory she couldn't embrace - Ms. Maddow had a "you're crazy" look of disbelief on her face.  Apparently her colleague's liberal fantasy is something that even she can't buy into.

A third and related outcome to the attack is that this should once and for all put an end to the tireless speculation that Russia hacked the DNC's servers in order to get Trump elected.  It should prove what I've said all along:  Vladimir Putin would much rather have had Hillary Clinton bring a third Obama term of feckless foreign policy to the White House, than face a U.S. President who has no problem backing tough talk with corresponding action.

Despite any positive statements Trump may have made about improving relations with Russia, it's always been clear that Trump would seek those improved relations on America's terms.  Hillary was a devil Putin knew, and you know what they say about the devil you know vs. the one you don't.

So again, this should put the Russiagate garbage to rest.  But it won't, because there are still tantrums to be thrown.

A fourth outcome, and one that few are talking about, is that this may justify our actions against Iraq under Bush II.  Our intel at the time was clear:  Hussein had WMDs.  But when we got there, we couldn't find them, so the left claimed Bush was lying about the intel, or had it fabricated to justify his ends.

Back then, there was considerable speculation that Hussein had spirited them off to Syria, where his buddy Assad stockpiled them.  Assad's use of chlorine bombs and sarin gas suggests that just may be the case.

A final positive outcome is that this action, once and for all, should provide hope to the people of Syria.  I've been saying for more than a year that the best way to resolve the refugee crisis there is to help the Syrian people secure their homeland from the dual threat of Assad and ISIS.  The logic behind this assertion is that the Syrian people don't want to be refugees.  They want to remain in their homeland, safe and secure from tyranny and terror, not be uprooted and re-settled in Western countries where they would have to assimilate into cultures far different from their own.

My bandwagon is becoming more crowded.  Recent interviews with Syrian refugees in the U.S. have revealed that they want to go home, but they can't until Assad is no longer in power and ISIS is no longer in existence.  Saudi Arabia's Deputy Prince bin Salman, speaking during his joint press conference with President Trump, also stated that the Syrians want to remain in Syria.  Even as long as a year ago, interviews with Syrian refugees revealed their pain and anguish over leaving their homes behind.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for hegemony.  And our past attempts at orchestrated regime change have not always turned out well, for example when we put the Shah into power in Iran.  The Shah's brutal regime led to the ayatollahs taking over that nation, and look where that's got us.  But this is how the U.S. has helped to resolve such crises throughout history, from Hitler to the end of the Cold War to the deposition of Saddam Hussein (which Bush I screwed up by not continuing the march on Baghdad after we'd eliminated the threat to Kuwait).  Even Bill Clinton used military intervention to help end the Bosnian genocide.

Too often we've tragically stayed on the sidelines, especially when there were no oil interests at play.  Think Rwanda and Darfur.  Our track record has been far from perfect when it comes to addressing genocide.

So I'm not in favor of us hand-picking a successor to Assad who may in turn wind up being an even worse despot.  But neither do I believe we can stand idly by while he gasses his people, and lets ISIS run rampant.

After all, even rocker Tom Petty understands that you don't have to live like a refugee.